The Court of International Trade in a June 15 opinion sustained parts and sent back parts of the Commerce Department's remand results over the antidumping duty review of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from South Korea. In the case's most recent remand, Commerce dropped a particular market situation adjustment to the cost of production for mandatory respondent Hyundai Steel but kept the adjustment to the other mandatory respondent Husteel's normal value when calculating non-examined respondent SeAH Steel's rate. In the opinion, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sustained the PMS adjustment drop for Hyundai but remanded the PMS adjustment as it pertains to SeAH's rate.

Plaintiffs in an antidumping case failed to exhaust their administrative remedies when challenging the Commerce Department's decision to issue a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 travel restrictions, the Court of International Trade ruled in a June 14 opinion. Judge Stephen Vaden said that the AD petitioner, Ellwood City Forge Co., had "multiple opportunities" to counter the verification methodology, but failed to do so administratively.

The Commerce Department properly found that electricity was not provided below cost in South Korea in a countervailing duty investigation, the Court of International Trade said in a June 13 opinion. Following a remand from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that both of the remanded issues -- Commerce's reliance on the preferential-rate standard and its failure to address the Korean Power Exchange's (KPX's) impact on the South Korean electricity market as rendering cost-recovery analysis -- now comply with the appellate court's ruling.

The Court of International Trade in a June 14 opinion sustained the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Italy. The case was led by Ellwood City Forge Co., the AD petitioner, which argued against Commerce's use of a questionnaire in lieu of on-site verification due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. Judge Stephen Vaden sided with the U.S., holding that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies on the verification question.

The government may only file counterclaims at the Court of International Trade in cases that involve imported merchandise, NetJets said in a June 8 motion seeking dismissal of a DOJ counterclaim seeking liquidated damages from the company for its failure to collect customs user fees (CUFs) for airline ticket purchases (NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00142).

Importer Royal Brush Manufacturing failed to show that the Court of International Trade wrongly held that CBP did not violate the company's due process rights in an Enforce and Protect Act investigation, the U.S. argued in a June 9 reply brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In its opening brief, Royal Brush failed to cite "any legal authority" to back its theory that the trade court erred in shielding the business confidential information (BCI) from disclosure, DOJ said (Royal Brush Manufacturing Inc. v. United States, Fed. Cir. #22-1226).

The Commerce Department appropriately found that an Australian exporter did not reimburse an affiliated importer for antidumping duties paid and thus rightly decided not to deduct the amount of antidumping duties paid from the exporter's U.S. price in an AD case, the Court of International Trade said. In a a May 31 opinion that was made public June 10, Judge Richard Eaton said that the sale between exporter BlueScope Steel (AIS) and the affiliated importer BlueScope Steel Americas (BSA) was a "garden variety transaction among an exporter, an importer, and an unaffiliated purchaser."

The Commerce Department properly found that electricity in South Korea wasn't provided to two countervailing duty respondents for less than adequate remuneration, the Court of International Trade said in a June 13 opinion. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves said that the position is backed by substantial evidence and in line with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's prior ruling in the case. The Federal Circuit previously said that Commerce's reliance on a preferential-rate standard was illegal and that the agency failed to address the Korean Power Exchange's impact on the South Korean electricity market. Both issues were addressed, leading to Choe-Groves to sustain the remand.

The Court of International Trade in a confidential June 9 opinion remanded the Commerce Department's final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on biodiesel from Indonesia. In the investigation, Commerce disregarded exporter Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia's home market sales and nearly all of its reported costs due to a particular market situation in Indonesia. The agency said the PMS existed based on a Public Service Obligation program that requires biodiesel producers to sell a certain amount of biodiesel in Indonesia at a market-set price. Commerce also found a PMS for Wilmar's crude palm oil costs based on the Indonesian government's export tax and export levy on CPO, which lowers its cost. In a letter filed about the confidential opinion, Judge Richard Eaton gave the parties until June 16 to review any confidential information (Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd. v. United States, CIT #18-00121).

The Commerce Department in June 9 remand results filed at the Court of International Trade no longer found that a particular market situation existed in India regarding the price of hot-rolled coil. Making the switch under protest, Commerce said that since it found that a PMS no longer exists, the other remanded issues in the case are moot (Garg Tube Export v. United States, CIT #20-00026).